A friend of mine got the new EGM and it contained some Wii reviews:
Wii Sports: 7, 7, 7.5
Red Steel: 8, 7.5, 7
Excite Truck: 5.5, 7, 6
There weren't any other Wii titles that made it. They did list Call of Duty 3, which basically got straight 8.5's, but I'm not sure if that was for the 360 or if it was for the Wii/360.
So, basically above average to good? Pretty much what I expected *shrugs*
And I have a feeling those 8.5s are for the 360 version. That's about the score CoD2 got.
5.5? For bigdamntrucks? ;_;
Oh, and who were the reviewers for each? Just wondering... find out if you can.
Sorry, I don't know what person reviewed each. I'll try and find that out later, though.
For a free game 7 is very good.
That is good for a free game. I didn't expect much from Excitetruck and Red Steel seems to be getting predictable scores.
Im very suprised at the Excite Truck scores. I've trusted Nintendo when it came to Mario Kart so I'm very curious about where Excite Truck went wrong. With that said in mind I never figured ET to be a genre breaking, killer app.
I thought those were fairly low personally. But then again, I remember a lot of the games that first came out for the DS got fairly low scores too. Regardless, hopefully the others will get better scores.
Was I the only one that thought Excite Truck looked like garbage? =/
No, for any racing game I'll just wait for WaveRace or MarioKart.
shi-
I'm almost more excited to see EGM's new layout then I am for the review scores. :cookie:
Anyway, that's good. What I expected. Will Twilight Princess be reviewed next month? I'll be thoroughly surprised if it doesn't get a platinum score.
big da[COLOR="White"]m[/COLOR]n trucks*
Still didn't sell me. Looked plain bad. I never saw the "hype" behind it.
Excitetruck looks like a basic racer. I doubt it'll matter much at all in a few months. I wouldn't mind playing it for a few minutes to see how it feels with the Wiimote, but other than that, I'll stick to Excitebike.
I can't remember, but did they say if Excitetruck had a level editor? Anyhow I am not really suprised at the scores. Red Steel is the only game I am excited for out of the three above.
Well ExciteBike and ExciteBike 64 both did so I see no reason not to. That would certainly make the game more appealing. I love map editors. It lets my imagination run wiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiild.
I already decided EGM sucked *** after seeing their Gears review. There is no friggin' way that game is perfect.
Ten bux says those scores are reflected by a large amount of reviewers. Or very close to anyways.
But yeah, GoW, though looking fantastic, definitely doesn't deserve a perfect score. I know this without even having to play it. It's just not one of those games and you can see various, albeit minor, flaws even in videos.
The game is almost perfect 10, though. I just played it for 4 hours.
Oh, and Speedy: If you're going to hate EGM just for giving Gears a perfect 10, then you should probably never read reviews again. Seeing as almost every single magazine/site has handed a "bogus" review score.
Yeah, I pretty much agree with that. Most magazines have given it a bogus score. It happened with Halo 2 and it's happening with Gears, it's totally overhyped. The fact is that everything this game has going for it will make it outdated in 6 months to a year. Leaps and bounds are constantly made in graphics and A.I., not so with traditionally brilliant game design. If this game were released and reviewed in 2 years time it definately wouldn't get a perfect, it'd be run of the mill.
EGM traditionally underrate Nintendo games, at least every time I've seen their scores they have. I'm just seriously annoyed by the fact that I just know that all these critics that gave Gears 10/10 won't do the same for Zelda. As far as I'm concerned, that's totally fucking bogus.
This is why it's better to read many reviews instead of taking JUST ONE site's/magazine's word for it. I personally don't care about reviews or ratings, because in the end I decide whether I like the game or not. Sure, ratings and reviews are somewhat of a guideline, but always take what I read with a grain of salt.
Why is it hard to accept the fact that the game rules? Christ.
You obviously haven't played it, so stop bashing it so much.
Because it doesn't, it's another generic shooter by Epic. That makes it imperfect.
Well I would say that you're in the EXTREME minority then.
Unless the game sells 70 million copies, I'm afraid not.
Since sales represent if a game's good or not. If that were the case, then Madden wouldn't be selling over a million copies a year.
I've seen the monkeyball/raving rabbits review, they weren't so good, but...
Holy hell, Red Steel got higher than Excite truck??!! FROM EGM??
edit: Yeah, and I've got Gears of Wars. It's really fun, but I don't think it's straight 10s worthy.
I'm excited for both equally, but EGM has been hating on htis game for so long...
Are you sure these are real scores? I herad that they were just rumor scores, proven fake. hm.
There were fake scores that had been floating around for a while. Which included Legend of Zelda scores, but those were proven fake. The ones I listed I'm pretty sure have been confirmed by people at the EGM forums already.
Well, the fact that they said Red Steel is good makes me happy. I'm still getting excite truck, it looks mad fun, and I usually don't listen to EGM's scores. But still, if they gave it such a good score after hating on it so much, then that's cool.
edit: Yeah, i'm positive those are fake
what the ****?
wow..some people on this website are really ****ing retarded.
I haven't played it, and I can see that most of the people commenting on how it's not perfect haven't played it, but I don't see what's hard to believe. In the same way I can say "Zelda is just another Zelda game" and never play it, I guess some people can say "it's just another generic shooter" and never play that game either. Of course, I have more sense than to call out titles I haven't played myself.
It's a review. It's a coincidence that EGM reviewers happened to agree enough, nearly no contest, to allow a perfect 10. They don't exactly hand those out, you know. In any case, this game must really be good.
Also: Um, now I'm not completely sure about this, but if enough people like a certain something then it becomes popular. You can't make someone like a game if they're not into it from the beginning. Apparently enough people thought the game was good, therefore it was made popular. So if AsianBanasianPersuasion here likes the game, it happens to coincide with the opinions of fellow gamers.
GameRankings.com has a 94% rating. So enough people agree.
I really have no point to make, so just ignore most of what I'm saying :) I haven't played the game either, though I plan on eventually getting it when it's really cheap.
[quote=Axis]Since sales represent if a game's good or not. If that were the case, then Madden wouldn't be selling over a million copies a year.
No, sales tell me whether or not I'm in the minority. If most gamers thought the game was perfect then most gamers would buy it. If most gamers bought it then it'd sell over 70 million copies, an absurd idea for a game with such narrow appeal.
[quote]
How is that fair? If you have a game that starts a new wave of excellent titles, how do those excellent titles lower the quality of the one game that brought them to life? I highly doubt GoW will be run-of-the-mill. If only because the very basics of it's gameplay aren't even close to being generic.
Because games like this are only good because they're cutting edge. The novelty of Gears is not it's interesting game design but it's graphics and A.I. In 2 years time that novelty will be nonexistant, there will be superior games. This isn't a game like Ocarina of Time or The Sims, where the great game design that lies within allows them to hold their own against most titles a decade later, this game is a benchmark. In 10 years time this game will look like dated trash, It has absolutely nothing in the way of lasting merit.
Is it unfair that a game that's had so much work put into it will be dated and won't stand the test of time? Yes, but that's entirely Epics decision. It's not my fault they love to scrape the bottom of the barrel when it comes to originality.
[quote]
Once again, it's not generic. Please explain how it is. because if it were, I think you'd start hearing some backlash.
I mean, Halo 2 wasn't perfect. That's a given. But it was still an incredibly strong title. And really, no matter how anyone feels, it's still one of the most popular games ever created. How many years later and the community is still gigantic. I think it's pretty fair to say a game is great when it can stand up to a classic, much loved, franchise like, let's say Zelda. And hey, that's almost the definition of "generic shooter" even if it's the title that really started it all.
I've watched plenty of videos, other than the ability to hide behind things and a chainsaw I've seen absolutely nothing out of the ordinary in this game. I ask fans of the game on a regular basis "What's so great about it?", every single time I get the exact same answer; graphics and A.I.
Newsflash, every single new shooting game by American Games Developer X has claimed to have the best graphics and A.I., pretty much all of them have fallen by the wayside and haven't gotten out of their little couple million gamer niche.
F.E.A.R was hyped as the most amazing new FPS coming out, sure as hell didn't sell 8 million copies. Same goes for Far Cry and Doom 3. These titles actually had something miniscule going for them, I could immediately see some kind of unique attraction from those titles (though barely anything in F.E.A.Rs case), from GoW I haven't really seen anything. We'll see if it sells more than 3.5 million copies, but I kinda doubt it. If it does it's through the hype of being 360s first really good game, which in itself is absolutely pitiful considering it's been out a year. Oblivion has accomplished more than this game, and that didn't break any sales barriers.
Halo wasn't a success for having the best graphics and A.I., it was a success because it wasn't totally generic. It actually added something to gameplay which a ton of developers (such as Epic) have since copied.
Zelda is regularely labelled as the greatest game series or all time, it constantly pushes the envelope in design and wins GOTY awards on a regular basis with ease. To say a game like Gears stands up to it is quite frankly an insult, considering just how much influence the series has had on other developers and just how little Gears changes anything.
Again, for the record the game does look awesome and it will be one of the first games I get on 360, but I just know EGM are somehow gonna give Zelda a worse rating than this. And I am ever so slightly annowed that they gave Red Steel such a criminally low score considering just how much the game is doing and just how much Gears isn't.
[quote=Bebop]Fake scores? Wtf? As in reviews made stuff up? I dont udnerstand.
Also what did they give Monkey Ball and Rayman? Out of curiousity.
No, as in someone posted scores from EGM and they turned out to be fake.
Yeah, the scores are fake.
Ah, these are the wii games they reviewed:
Monkey ball: 6/6.5/7
Dragon Ball: 7/6.5/7
monkey ball got really low scores...
Ngamer gave Mokey ball a lovely 84%. It doesnt matter if EGM gave it a low score. It's quite well known know they arent the best reviewers around.
Hold the phone Vamo, you havent played it yet. If Im not mistaken youre not getting it till Thursday so bashing Speedy for having an opinion on it before playing it is as dumb as you having an opinion on it before playing it.
Well, he's right, Bebop. I've played the game, for well over 12 hours now. Everything he's said is more or less correct.
Right about what? That Speedy cant have an opinion before playing a game but he can?
No, I'm not agreeing with that part. I'm agreeing with Vamp about how the game plays.
Oh. Just like how every reviewers says it plays? 3rd person shooter with context senstive A button for hiding?
Incredible.
[Quote=Vampiro]Play the game. The game design is fabulous. Visuals and AI are a large part, but if you actually played it you'd realise those are only "wow" for so long. The game itself and the design is what truly makes it a great game.
That is the part I'm agreeing with on Vampiro, I dunno even know what the hell you're saying.
Maybe cos youre an idiot? You posted you were getting in on Thursday. I did not see a post saying you had played "it (and cod3 yay) all ****ing day today", assuming one exists.
Maybe you got it early and didnt say? *shrug* I mean, I DID say that I hadnt seen a post saying that.
Yeah, all right.
shi-
I was wondering why this fancy new EGM with a new design hasn't been appearing in my mailbox. >=|